2012 was certainly a year of change at Apple, though the company made more money and sold more devices than ever. From the consumer side, it's hard to argue with retina MacBook Pros and new iPads—especially when they come out ahead of schedule. But from within Apple, the changes were much more significant.

Over the last year, four important Apple executives left the company. One of those execs was hired and fired within that year. Another chose to retire, only to take a few steps back several months later. We thought we'd take a look at these four and what roles they played within the Apple ecosystem to see what all the fuss was about—for better or for worse.

John Browett: Apple retail

Apple / Aurich Lawson

Apple announced in January of 2012 that it hired John Browett in order to place Ron Johnson as retail head. Right from the beginning, Browett's appointment was controversial—he had previously been CEO of Dixons Retail in the UK, which had an increasingly poor reputation for its messy stores, annoying staff, and "appalling" customer service. He seemed to be the exact opposite of what Apple would have been looking for to replace Johnson, who built Apple's retail presence from the ground-up as being clean (both in the traditional sense and aesthetically), easygoing, and customer-friendly.

Apple's stores performed fine under Browett; throughout 2012, the company continued to pull in almost unrealistic sales numbers per square foot compared to other high-end retailers. But from the inside, things were looking ugly. Numerous Apple retail employees told Ars about mismanagement at their stores, the cutting back of cleaning staff, tighter Genius Bar bookings, and other cost-cutting, revenue-boosting measures.

That's why, when it came out in October that Browett had been shown the door, not one single outsider seemed surprised. Apparently, even some insiders agreed.

"John Browett seemed like a bad hire from the outside, and apparently the people inside Apple agreed—eventually," Ars contributor John Siracusa said. "It's somewhat heartening to see Tim Cook take decisive action to correct his mistake, but avoiding the mistake in the first place would have been even better."

AllThingsD has begun guessing at who could be Browett's replacement as we go into 2013. The list includes executives from Coach, Nike, Starbucks, Burberry, and Disney, all revered for their strong international presence.

Bob Mansfield: hardware engineering

Bob Mansfield

Apple

"If hiring John Browett was a mistake, then allowing Bob Mansfield to leave was an even bigger one," said Siracusa.

Indeed, when it became public in June of 2012 that Apple's hardware engineering head Bob Mansfield was retiring, the announcement was met with howls from employees and Apple-watchers alike. Mansfield had been part of Apple since 1999 and spent much of his time there working on the products we know and love. Apple said it was replacing Mansfield with VP of iPad engineering Dan Riccio.

Two months later, Apple made another surprising announcement. Riccio was still taking over as SVP of the hardware engineering group from Mansfield, but Mansfield had apparently decided to stay on board as an advisor to the engineering team to "work on future products," said Apple.

Mansfield's decision to reverse course on his retirement was uncharacteristic, but largely accepted by those relieved that Mansfield's expertise would remain at Apple for a while longer. It came out months later that Mansfield may have decided to stay on board—in part—due to iOS software head Scott Forstall's departure (coming up next). Forstall and Mansfield reportedly clashed over Forstall's "confrontational management style," but Mansfield was allegedly willing to commit to more time at Apple once he knew Forstall would be leaving.

That story may have ultimately had a happy ending for Mansfield and his fans, but Siracusa pointed out the whole incident made Apple look like it was fumbling in the public eye.

"It's much easier to fire a bad employee than to hire and retain a good one. Obviously, Tim Cook wants Bob Mansfield at Apple. His departure and strange, nearly immediate return was an embarrassment, and a black mark on Tim Cook's record as a manager. But again, credit Cook for fixing his mistake quickly and ending up in a good final position," Siracusa said.

Scott Forstall: iOS software

Scott Forstall presenting new iOS features during Apple's September 2012 media event.

Nathan Mattise

Even more shocking than Mansfield's retirement (then un-retirement) was the ousting of iOS software head Scott Forstall. The announcement about Forstall's departure came at the same time as Browett's, signaling an attempt within Apple to correct course and go into 2013 with a stronger team. But Forstall had been a confidant of Steve Jobs, and although he wasn't everyone's favorite person to work with, he was respected for his work ethic and high standards.

Immediately after the announcement, sources started coming out of the woodwork to talk about the reasons they believed Forstall was shuffled aside. As mentioned above, Forstall apparently clashed with numerous other high-profile executives, including designer Jony Ive and Bob Mansfield. The situation was reportedly so tense that many execs wouldn't meet with him in a room alone without some kind of mediation from Cook.

But it's easy to hate on a strong personality—especially from the outside. Those who have followed Apple through the decades took a more nuanced view of what happened.

"It's not surprising to see a lot of Forstall bad-mouthing from anonymous Apple sources in the wake of his departure—history is written by the winners, after all—but it's unfair to assume that all of those things are true," said Siracusa.

"What we do know from the outside is that Forstall was in charge of iOS, and the last two releases of iOS had headline features that failed to live up to Apple's own standards. Siri's release as a 'beta' was an attempt to deflect some criticism, but it also highlighted Apple's own dissatisfaction with the feature. As for iOS 6's new Maps application, Tim Cook summed it up well: 'We screwed up.'"

But, as Siracusa points out, those two things may have been embarrassing, but are they really grounds for a firing?

"Probably not. But throw in some personality conflicts and add a new CEO with a 'deep belief that collaboration is essential for innovation' and the conditions are ripe for Forstall's ouster," Siracusa said.

"Whatever Steve Jobs's feelings were about collaboration, he obviously liked Forstall. Jobs promoted him until he was in charge of Apple's most important software product. Tim Cook's dismissal of Forstall is a sign that he's finally asserting his own values on Apple's leadership. I think Cook was wise not to clean house the day he took over as CEO, but I'm glad he finally seems to have come to a decision about something that was clearly a source of tension inside Apple."

Richard Williamson: iOS Platform Services

Richard Williamson was probably the least high-profile of the execs who left Apple in the last year, but his departure is worth noting because of the alleged reason behind it. He was Senior Director for iOS Platform Services and worked under Scott Forstall, and was reportedly tasked with heading up the new version of Maps for release with iOS 6.

We all know how the Maps thing played out—not well. Apple's head of Internet services Eddy Cue apparently had enough and fired Williamson in late November, not long after Scott Forstall. But even though Williamson wasn't in the limelight as much as some of the others, he had been a major player in Apple's mobile strategy for many years. As noted by Bloomberg, Williamson came from the NeXT world and helped to develop software for the original iPhone; he is named on numerous patents for the iPhone as well.

As such, his firing was no small matter. Clearly, the poor reputation earned by iOS 6's Maps app embarrassed Apple to its core, and its remaining execs would rather move into the new year with a team that doesn't overlook major flaws before shipping a final product.

Where do we go from here?

2012 was the first full year in which Tim Cook led Apple without Steve Jobs at his side. While Jobs told Cook to avoid asking what he would do—and instead just do what's right—Cook still had some mighty shoes to fill in the eyes of the public. It's natural to analyze what changes occurred under Cook's watch and why they went down the way they did, but it's clear Cook is taking Jobs' advice to heart: he's shaping Apple into what he thinks is right for the company.

Will we continue to see major executive shakeups like this in 2013 and beyond? Possibly. There's no telling what kinds of ideas Cook and other executives have in mind for where things are going from here. There were executive changes before Cook and, if Apple continues to take a critical look at its own work, there will continue to be shakeups long after Cook as well. The question will be whether Apple shed the right ones at the right times; we'll likely find out the answer for those who left in 2012 soon enough.

47 Reader Comments

Apple has trimmed the fat, ejected the interlopers, and is now focused like a laser beam.

Apple has access to China, they have the cheaper iphone on the way, new ipads, new laptops and even Mac pros on the way in the next six months. I expect the reconfiguring of their production chain relationships will start to pay dividends.

Then we have the BIG product game changer , Apple TV.

With Apple's cash hoard approaching $200 billion (larger than the combined market cap of Intel, HP and Dell and still have cash left over!) in 2013, they are the 500 ton elephant in the room.

Apples problem is that their outrageous profit margins were based on the fact that they are so far ahead of the curve.

Problem is they aren't anymore. The new features of ios6 are either forgettable (passport) or actively make the product worse (maps). The biggest new feature of the iphone5 is to make it at least a bit less tiny when compared to its much more flexible android competition. Their by far biggest project the icloud is something that Google has been doing from the start. You enter your Google id and everything is there incl. Your purchased apps.

While ios clearly has the better polish and app store and the new iphone hardware is better than anything of the competition. On the other hand android is so much more flexible (typing on SwiftKey is awesome) has intents to connect apps, comes in all shapes and sizes and is available in all countries and from all providers.

In the end apple either needs to push out another revolutionary device or start making significant changes to their os. Or hell just accept lower profit margins. Wouldn't be bad for customers.

Oh and while their at it they could stop the insane patent war in am pretty sure a large number of people is put of by it and making Google its enemy instead of partner clearly doesn't pay off. Cough maps cough

I'm not a big fan of Apple, but they make nice products, the iPhone changed the smartphone landscape forever, though they haven't kept up with smartphone development (IMO because The Steve is gone) and they are now starting to feel it.

Having said that, I would not want them to go away because someone needs to be on the other side (versus Android) to help drive innovation -- without competition we get IE 6. Ugh.

I'm extremely skeptical that Apple or Google TV will ever be a big thing. There are too many players in the cable/TV/movie industry that will try to prevent that from happening. At the cost of innovation of course.

I'm not a big fan of Apple, but they make nice products, the iPhone changed the smartphone landscape forever, though they haven't kept up with smartphone development (IMO because The Steve is gone) and they are now starting to feel it.

Having said that, I would not want them to go away because someone needs to be on the other side (versus Android) to help drive innovation -- without competition we get IE 6. Ugh.

They certainly make well marketed products.

Whether their products are nice or not is a matter of opinion.

Either way I'm sure apple will accept its 20% market share kicking and screaming all the way.

As for competition, there will always be competition. There's Mozilla's OS, Ubuntu, and (of course) windows phone. Just because Apple might conceivably one day decide billions of dollars a year isn't enough for them doesn't mean that Android would be the only phone OS left.

Apple has enough inertia to carry itself over a few bumps in its product roadmap. They'll leapfrog every few years in some way and market that new gadget like they know how, and they'll again be making money hand over fist. Sorry, Apple haters. They've got plenty of cash reserves. They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I just hope Ive can make iOS not look like crap. I also hope (but have less faith in it happening) that iOS itself will be redesigned so the back button is not on the top left corner. It seems like MS (and now RIM) are the only ones who understand the usability benefits of not forcing the user to reach up to the top of the screen. Apple didn't need to worry about this for the longest time because the small screen mitigated many potential usability issues, but moving to an iPhone 5 - it feels really cumbersome.

iOS 7 is a big deal for me this year. iOS 5 added a few good new features but was really a refined and well-rounded mobile OS. iOS 6 tried to move things forward and failed in many ways. iOS 6 has bugs uncharacteristic of iOS up to this point and the built-in apps suffered.

I suspect iOS 7 to be out between July and September. I'm hoping Apple focuses on correcting it's mistakes with built-in apps (most notably Maps) as well as refining the OS so that it runs smooth. It'd be nice to see some new features make way into the OS, but not at the expense of fixing the issues created by iOS 6.

It may be that Apple needs to start releasing mid-year updates to iOS; for example iOS 6.5, iOS 7, iOS 7.5, and so on... Apple uses minor updates to fix issues like the recent wi-fi issues for iPhone 5's, but they don't do significant releases to other parts of the OS until the next full release. I'd like to see that change. If a fix or a feature is ready and up to standards for an Apple product (whatever you want to think that standard is) then it should be released. It's understandable that some features Apple would want to hold back for product releases that typically coincide with iOS releases. However, customers would be happier to get periodical updates that improve the OS over having to "deal with it" for an entire year before the next OS release. Maps, for example could use some continuous improvement (not getting any worse - are they?)... any progress with that app is good progress and worth it for Apple to release ahead of iOS 7.

Maybe not. Maybe Apple's year-long strategy is best for meeting the standards they expect of themselves. I really enjoy using my iOS products. I've been sticking with Apple for a few years now, even as Android has matured and added features that attract me to that platform. I won't be an Apple devote forever unless they keep giving me reasons to stay with Apple products. Hopefully these executive shake-ups were the right decisions to get things moving at Apple so that history isn't repeated (thinking: Microsoft vs Apple in the late 90's).

It's going to be an interesting year for us as we watch Apple transform into the company we will know for the next decade. A lot of historic events are sure to happen over the next 2 years.

In the end apple either needs to push out another revolutionary device or start making significant changes to their os. Or hell just accept lower profit margins.

All of these, I'd say. Apple needs to get into the TV business (or come with something that replaces it) because someone else will do it sooner or later otherwise and losing that ground to Google would be fatal. Apple needs to get iOS on track and moving again, because it is nearly derailed and stuck. And Apple needs to accept lower margins to expand the reach of iOS in developing markets, because without a healthy market share there they'll be stuck with an ecosystem and a platform that is not first-rate and will never have any leverage in many connected business segments.

Right now Apple is the 500 pound gorilla sitting in a corner and brooding.

The alarming thing is that despite excellent hardware nearly all over the board Apple has been helplessly fumbling around when it comes to software and services for years now. "Not too bad" or "unremarkable" is already the best one can hope for usually. This is not good. If you're willing to accept higher prices and a closed system you at least want to get something exceptionally good.

Apple has trimmed the fat, ejected the interlopers, and is now focused like a laser beam.

Apple has access to China, they have the cheaper iphone on the way, new ipads, new laptops and even Mac pros on the way in the next six months. I expect the reconfiguring of their production chain relationships will start to pay dividends.

Then we have the BIG product game changer , Apple TV.

With Apple's cash hoard approaching $200 billion (larger than the combined market cap of Intel, HP and Dell and still have cash left over!) in 2013, they are the 500 ton elephant in the room.

Unfortunately most of what you typed out is just hype and hyperbole.

The fact is the cheaper iPhone is mere rumor. There are conflicting reports as to the veracity of those rumors. It's so unclear that last Friday reports out of Shanghai had an Apple Exec saying there was no way they were going to do that. Then later reports said that report was bunk.

The reality is that Apple demands very high subsidies on the iPhone. Apple's competitors, Samsung, HTC, Motrolla and Nokia (to name a few) don't charge anywhere near those subsidies. Which is why China Mobile, the largest cell provider in the world went with the Lumia line over the iPhone. As Apple faces stiffer competition and their sales decline their high subsidies on the phones is going to hurt them. The carriers won't be as likely to promote the iPhone over something with a higher profit margin for them.

And much of Apple's recent success relates directly to the "halo" effect of the iPhone. As that device sold well the iPad took off and that helped drive sales in their other arenas. And it's likely that the same will play out when sales decline.

As far as the "game changer, Apple TV" goes... they've tried and failed a couple of times already. One of the biggest problems is that it needs MDNS. (Multicast Domain Name Services) Many organizations restrict MDNS on security principals which means Apple TV is a no-go for them.

It's important to cut the hype from the fact. Apple has some serious hurdles in front of them. There's no reason to think they won't be able to clear them, but it's possible that they won't. As a share holder I hope they do and I hope they do it with room to spare. They've got tons of cash on hand so a few stumbles won't be a big deal as long as they can recover. I just hope they can recover... we've seen a few cracks in their shinny veneer lately... and those could just be little things or the signs of major things to come. (I'm betting on the little things... my stock stays where it is)

I'm extremely skeptical that Apple or Google TV will ever be a big thing. There are too many players in the cable/TV/movie industry that will try to prevent that from happening. At the cost of innovation of course.

The same thing was often said about itunes, and the way Apple made it succeed is the same thing they need to do for any future TV plans; tie up all the distributors with identical deals. If they or google can present a non-painful interface allowing you to buy any TV episode you like, it'll work. If they can't, it won't.

Apple needs to continue focusing on what made them big, content control.

iTunes is what enabled iPods to takeover the PMP market. The hardware was always good but rarely the best.

iPads continue to dominate tablets partly due to so many optimized apps (newspapers, magazines, etcetera). Whereas Android is getting more scraps than meat.

They made a HUGE mis-step with iOS maps and I think another weak step with Passbook. They needed more partners at launch. Heck, they need more partners right now! Those are both content. Apple made similar weak movements with MobileMe, which always had/still has good potential. IMO, it was a mistake to put out the iPad Mini without higher resolution but the sale figures suggest it wasn't a mistake, lol. They'll just get strong upgrade sales next year.

What's next? Probably TV. If they can get Netflix-like contracts with content providers they can pry their way into more livingrooms. There have been some sweet smart TV's in the past few years (Samsung, I'm looking at you) but once again, Apple might get it done right and in with enough uers to make it a standard.

I'm not a big fan of Apple, but they make nice products, the iPhone changed the smartphone landscape forever,

I once was a card carrying fanboy, but now am worse than not a big fan. Mostly because of the patent wars.

But yes, the iPhone changed the landscape forever.

skicow wrote:

though they haven't kept up with smartphone development (IMO because The Steve is gone) and they are now starting to feel it.

My opinion is that they weren't keeping up even when The Steve was running things. I remember Steve saying that nobody wanted / needed multasking on a phone. But he said that only because he didn't have multitasking and his competition did. But the next year he had multitasking -- albeit in an inferior way with popup modal badge dialogs. Next year the iPhone shamelessly copied Android's notification pulldown system. I also seem to remember Steve saying that seven inch tablets were DOA, back when the first early seven inch androids started to appear, and Android tablets had not really taken off yet.

skicow wrote:

Having said that, I would not want them to go away because someone needs to be on the other side (versus Android) to help drive innovation -- without competition we get IE 6. Ugh.

Yes. I was hoping things would shape up to be three major competitors instead of two. Now I am concerned in the long term about there being two.

OTOH, Android has a good mix of balances. There are multiple OEMs competing with each other. Lots of features, styles, sizes, colors, and prices. Google can use its own apps to pressure OEMs, but ultimately if Google becomes another Microsoft or Apple, OEMs can say goodbye because Android is open source. A certain amount of fragmentation is a good thing, as long as it doesn't get so bad it fractures into a bunch of incompatible fiefdoms.

Unlike IE 6, having a single overall system with nobody in absolute control (like Linux, or web browser standards, or like automobiles) could be a good thing.

Either way I'm sure apple will accept its 20% market share kicking and screaming all the way.

As for competition, there will always be competition. There's Mozilla's OS, Ubuntu, and (of course) windows phone. Just because Apple might conceivably one day decide billions of dollars a year isn't enough for them doesn't mean that Android would be the only phone OS left.

One need not be a fan of the company to concede that Apple's products are, on the whole, very well conceived, engineered, and executed. In many fields, they have helped reinvent the wheel, and have been the standard bearer for new tech for nearly a decade now.

You may take issue with the word 'nice', but it's relatively pedantic to do so. Apple's products tend to be very, very good across the board.

As for market share - it's the natural inclination of all companies to fight for more market share. One need not begrudge Apple for acting the same way that every other company acts.

There are also multiple devices upon which to consume content. All brands of phones, tablets. Numerous brands and kinds of TV set top boxes.

The content owners wouldn't want to lock themselves into only a subset of consumers that own Apple equipment. Unless Apple had an effective monopoly on the consumers, or an effective market dominance, the content owners wouldn't want an exclusive deal.

Disney recently signed with Netflix as its exclusive online distributor. But that's not the same thing as signing with Apple as an exclusive distributor because Netflix is on everything.

A rubbish product that has been extremely well marketed can only last so long before it crashes and burns when people realise that it's all style over substance.

It would be asinine to suggest that a product that has lasted 7 years, had 6 iterations, manages to sell more devices than the previous one year-on-year and routinely sells more handsets than nearly all other manufacturers is only popular because of marketing.

A rubbish product that has been extremely well marketed can only last so long before it crashes and burns when people realise that it's all style over substance.

It would be asinine to suggest that a product that has lasted 7 years, had 6 iterations, manages to sell more devices than the previous one year-on-year and routinely sells more handsets than nearly all other manufacturers is only popular because of marketing.

Your reasoning is fallacious. Something selling doesn't mean it's something nice or good, it just means it's something that people have bought.

Nice is really a qualitative judgement, not quantitative.

Do you recall the Ars Samsung Galaxy S3 preview when the article's author claimed the S3 seemed cheap and poorly made to him because it wasn't as rigid as an iphone?

In the comments thread that went on for quite a few posts he continued to defend his position, even when it was pointed out to him that flexibility is no indication of quality whatsoever, and that some of the strongest materials used in many expensive applications are extremely flexible. (think flexible titanium eyeglasses, for example)

"Nice" is whatever someone decides it is. Apple products are extremely well marketed, and the A6 is an excellent piece of engineering, but whether someone thinks the iphone is "nice" or not isn't for you to decide.

Next year the iPhone shamelessly copied Android's notification pulldown system.

To be honest, the iOS notification system is much better than the "original" from Android. It has tappable banners in the statusbar (Android has just passive ones), it has one central settings area where you can configure notifications for all apps in one place (Android is lacking this completely) and even the drawer is much more usable than Android's. In fact, notifications are one thing in Android that still seems to be half-assed and more of a nuisance than useful to me. Copying from Open Source and then improving on it is totally fine, I think.

With many other things I agree, iOS has stalled very much in the last years and Apple has grown into a kind of complacency and arrogance that is hard to bear. iOS is full of polished stubs that were fine for a first version in 2007 but have never been really worked on.

..."Nice" is whatever someone decides it is. Apple products are extremely well marketed, and the A6 is an excellent piece of engineering, but whether someone thinks the iphone is "nice" or not isn't for you to decide.

Precisely. People will buy what is right FOR THEM. Not what some random person on the internet tells them is right or wrong for them. Everyone has a life full of different constraints and needs. One series of devices will never be right for everyone. It really irks me to overhear sales people convincing unsuspecting buyers that one product is better than the other without taking into consideration the needs of that customer. For example....

I produced a specific list of items that I would have liked to receive as Christmas gifts. On this list was a list of video games for various platforms. My mother decided to take this list to GameStop where the employee directly told her "Your son doesn't want this game. Get him that one and this other one." Problem was... I wanted those games that the sales person turned my mother away from. That's why they were on the list!! I still ended up with games I wanted, but I was disappointed that the sales person had prevented me from getting other games that I wanted. It wasn't their place to decide whether or not I was going to like those games. He had no idea I've been gaming for ~18 years and that I read online and offline reviews/.previews and pay close attention to the gaming industry. He assumed based on my age and his knowledge that I didn't want those games.

Point is that you can't say that one thing is better for someone than another. It's not for you to decide. Knocking someone for their decisions is not the best way to influence them that something else would have been better. You have to find better ways to persuade people without insulting them. And don't insult them after the fact. People have enough trouble dealing with buyers remorse. They don't need a**holes on or off the 'net constantly calling them out on it.

Next year the iPhone shamelessly copied Android's notification pulldown system.

To be honest, the iOS notification system is much better than the "original" from Android. It has tappable banners in the statusbar (Android has just passive ones), it has one central settings area where you can configure notifications for all apps in one place (Android is lacking this completely) and even the drawer is much more usable than Android's. In fact, notifications are one thing in Android that still seems to be half-assed and more of a nuisance than useful to me. Copying from Open Source and then improving on it is totally fine, I think.

With many other things I agree, iOS has stalled very much in the last years and Apple has grown into a kind of complacency and arrogance that is hard to bear. iOS is full of polished stubs that were fine for a first version in 2007 but have never been really worked on.

iOS's insistence on putting all settings in one place is also a problem. It's nice that no matter what app or service you want to configure, you can go to the settings app and do that. That's the good thing. But when it comes to quickly making changes for an app it can be a pain flipping between apps. The centralization of settings is good, but it wouldn't hurt to have those settings available in other places also to make it more convenient for the user.

I would really like to see quick settings for common tasks such as turning on/off Bluetooth, WiFi and cellular as well as controlling the screen brightness. Maybe even just have the settings app running in the background and quickly available from the notification center without leaving the current app (the phones are getting fast enough and are loaded with enough RAM to keep it open).

I'm not a big fan of Apple's multitasking. The app icons along the bottom get the job done, but it could be much, much better. It could even be integrated into the Notification Center if done right. I'm not sure Android's implementations are the answer, but something's got to change.

JPan, be glad that your elementary school level confusion of "their" and "they're" was at the end of your post. You seemed somewhat interesting until this point. Very simple: their is posessive, they're is a contraction, and there is a location. I see a mistake like this, and the entire post is discredited to the point of seeming to come from a ten year old.

Ars readers, please down vote this "reader favorite". If they didn't pass elementary school, how can we expect them to understand the tech industry?

JPan, be glad that your elementary school level confusion of "their" and "they're" was at the end of your post. You seemed somewhat interesting until this point. Very simple: their is posessive, they're is a contraction, and there is a location. I see a mistake like this, and the entire post is discredited to the point of seeming to come from a ten year old.

Ars readers, please down vote this "reader favorite". If they didn't pass elementary school, how can we expect them to understand the tech industry?

Grammar nazis are everywhere. Interesting. I actually am fully aware of the difference between they're their, there etc. I can even use the genitive apostrophe correctly. I am a big boy that way. :-) But the comment was written on a Galaxy S3 (with swiftkey) and the downside of this excellent product is that after a while you accept smaller errors in the autocorrection for greater speed.

How that detracts from the quality of the written text stays of course in the eye of the beholder. Or to paraphrase the usual comment that is hurled at people complaining about a specific product feature like DRM: If you don't like it don't read it.

iOS's insistence on putting all settings in one place is also a problem. It's nice that no matter what app or service you want to configure, you can go to the settings app and do that. That's the good thing. But when it comes to quickly making changes for an app it can be a pain flipping between apps. The centralization of settings is good, but it wouldn't hurt to have those settings available in other places also to make it more convenient for the user.

Agreed, but the point with the notification settings is that at least there ARE settings. You can configure if a specific app should give you notifications or not, if it should be a modal popup or a banner, you can enable the notification going to the drawer or onto the lock screen. Android has an absurd lack of flexibility here and more often than not you can't even disable notifications from an app if you want to. And the email notification that gives you just a statusbar count of "new" messages in your inbox if it is more than one since you last looked in Gmail is almost a demo of how not to do it. In Android these are almost just a teaser, in iOS they're actually useful. You get sender and subject in the banner and you can right tap on it if you want to open it in the mail app. My Nexus 7 is driving me crazy with always teasing me with new email without telling me anything about it.

But yes, I think settings should be in the settings app AND in the app itself. Should be trivial to do, since the settings are defined separately anyway, you need just a way to call them up straight from the app.

It's really not as if everything in iOS is bad, not by far. It would be just nice if Apple would start to work on the areas that are bad or utter lacking features and openness.

... the comment was written on a Galaxy S3 (with swiftkey) and the downside of this excellent product is that after a while you accept smaller errors in the autocorrection for greater speed.

If you choose to use a product that generates errors, then this is your choice. I would urge you to not accept such a flaw, and to reread what you type before clicking to submit the comment. Speed and efficiency are great, but never at the expense of accuracy.

Just the same, apologies for the attack. It hurt my brain to read, and exactly as you prescribed, I stopped reading your comment (and unfortunately also those below it) because of the grammar error. I have a fantasy that Ars is a much better place to read news than slashdot, and when this even slightly appears to not be the case, I get unjustly upset due to years and years of abusing my brain trying to mentally correct for their sad writership and audience. Sorry to you and those who had to read through my flame.

The fact is the cheaper iPhone is mere rumor. There are conflicting reports as to the veracity of those rumors. It's so unclear that last Friday reports out of Shanghai had an Apple Exec saying there was no way they were going to do that. Then later reports said that report was bunk.

Hmm, it may be just me, but Apple immediately and officially denying a report of the possibility of a cheaper iPhone late in 2013 seems to be the closest thing to an official confirmation that, yes, there will be a cheaper iPhone in 2013 you will ever get. Especially since they absolutely must come with this if they don't want to lose the market in developing countries to Android for good. They don't need to compete with dirt-cheap low-end smartphones, but the hardware of the 4s in a well-designed plastic case with a 5" screen, good battery life and the resolution of the iPhone 5 for $349 unlocked would totally do the trick. They could even offer this for "free" on contract in the US and rake the money in.

Or they insist in doing the same that worked so well in a different time in a totally different market, close their eyes and hope for the best. But they didn't with the iPad Mini and they won't with the iPhone. They can't be that stupid. Not gaining market share would be fatal for a consumer-oriented platform that thrives on ubiquity.

Apple is fat enough to live with smaller margins for a very long time but the iOS ecosystem and with it the iPhone and Apple will just implode without market share. They need to get over that hump at any cost. Even their stock will suffer with falling profits only if this comes with falling market share. But there's nothing that overcomes fear better than long-term confidence demonstrated by putting your money and profits into the future of your products.

Hmm, it may be just me, but Apple immediately and officially denying a report of the possibility of a cheaper iPhone late in 2013 seems to be the closest thing to an official confirmation that, yes, there will be a cheaper iPhone in 2013 you will ever get. Especially since they absolutely must come with this if they don't want to lose the market in developing countries to Android for good. They don't need to compete with dirt-cheap low-end smartphones, but the hardware of the 4s in a well-designed plastic case with a 5" screen, good battery life and the resolution of the iPhone 5 for $349 unlocked would totally do the trick. They could even offer this for "free" on contract in the US and rake the money in.

I would agree that Apple coming out and saying "not gonna happen" would be a good indicator. But a report after THAT report said that the no report was crap.

It should be noted that Report 2 came out of a paper in China... so how credible is it? Granted Report 3 is from a business analyst so what does he know?

Truth be told, it's all very confusing and only Apple knows what's what.

Would it make sense from a market stand point? Yeah but I'm starting to wonder in they already missed that boat. Nokia got the China Mobile contract and was already a lock in India.

How does your proposed plastic 4S with a 5 inch screen fit with Apples design strategy? They've marketed themselves as a premier device company. They ONLY have high end, top shelf stuff. It'd be a pretty serious about face for them to drop a plastic phone on the market. It risks the position they've made for themselves. Whether that position makes any sense... totally different argument.

Further, other companies already have those markets. Apple lead the way into the smart phone market and did it very well. But assuming they even want to, do they know how to compete in the low end smart phone market? And would that dilute their current line of products?

How does your proposed plastic 4S with a 5 inch screen fit with Apples design strategy? They've marketed themselves as a premier device company. They ONLY have high end, top shelf stuff. It'd be a pretty serious about face for them to drop a plastic phone on the market. It risks the position they've made for themselves. Whether that position makes any sense... totally different argument.

Further, other companies already have those markets. Apple lead the way into the smart phone market and did it very well. But assuming they even want to, do they know how to compete in the low end smart phone market? And would that dilute their current line of products?

Not too long ago they were still selling the 3GS with a plastic case. Sold well. And maybe they manage to pull off an alu case or whatever. Can't be more than a few dollars anyway. Or they manage to market this honestly as "the iPhone for the rest of us". How hard can it be to market an affordable good 5" iPhone?

And I don't think Apple has to compete in the low end smartphone market. Low end is $99 or less (full price, no contract). There is lots of room below the $649 (without taxes) of the iPhone 5 without getting to the low end. There's no money to be made in the low end and there are lots of folks globally who could pay $350 or so for a good Apple smartphone.

The question is if Apple will be able to keep up "excellence" in their ecosystem if they lose market share or never really gain it in the global market. There's been much talk about how Steve Jobs managed to convince the music industry to give him good deals and even give up on DRM, but I think it wasn't just because of the reality distortion field. I guess the fact that Apple and iTunes just *owned* the digital music market and the iPod *owned* the player market helped quite a bit here. How do you think Apple will fare with totally *anything* if their market share is going down? Will Apple manage to get companies in for their Passport thingy? Will iTunes in China become a thriving place or a wasteland? Will customers pay a premium for a system that is not only closed but also starting to lack third-party support and content?

But I'm not Apple, I don't even own Apple stock. I would just hate to see Apple wrecking their potential and falling back into a "premium" niche and spiralling down to an agonizing, slow death. If they manage to fail here with all that they have in their hands they really, really deserve it. If I owned Apple stock and got the impression that Apple is just milking profits and margins as long as possible while sacrificing market share and the future of their ecosystem I would get the message and pull out as soon as possible, too.

It's ridiculous to think of Apple as a phone maker only. They have lots and lots new ground to conquer.

The iPhone and the iPad is their core business now. Computers are noise for them money-wise. Apps and content also earn them money, but they need market share for that, both to sell it to customers and to attract content suppliers and developers. Making apps and content more expensive to make up for lost market share won't work at all.

And if they want to conquer new ground they'd better start very soon with that. The only new product in the last years was the iPad mini, which is just a shrunken iPad 2. Without data points it becomes harder and harder to keep confident in their ability to do that. This starts to look more like desperate hope than expectation.

maars wrote:

At least they are not a data mining monopoly like Google.

Yeah, that's another good point. If Apple fails to make their "content for sale" model thrive on a global scale Google's "everything is free for you as long as we can sell you and your data to our customers" will thrive instead. In China they love free and cheap stuff at least as much as in the US.

The only thing that worries me (or at least makes me impatient for the future) is that Apple hasn't done much that is genuinely *new* in quite a while. Nearly every product in 2012 seemed to be lighter, thinner, faster, but not distinguished by a new feature or capability.

The only difference between the iPhone 4 and 4S aside from spec bumps is Siri (which I personally love). But that's it. And the iPhone 5 can't do anything at all that you can't do with the 4S. Admittedly, the iPhone 5 is a beautifully designed phone with a bigger screen, faster processor, etc. etc. But what can I do with it that I couldn't do with an older iPhone? Nothing at all!

It's the same with the laptops, and even in some ways, the software. iOS 6 hasn't exactly set the world on fire, nor has Mountain Lion. And shrinking the iPad is cool, but again, it doesn't do anything new that couldn't be done on the full-size iPad.

Now it's normal for there to be ebbs and flows in product development, so maybe 2013 will be the year of innovations and changes, and 2014 will be another incremental improvement year, etc. But it's a little worrisome that Apple seems to be tweaking what they have, rather than launching major new features and abilities in their products.